Biblical Doctrines

Rev. BenyAMIN BRECKINRIDGE WARFIELD, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Didactic and Polemic Theology in the Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, at Princeton, New Jersey, provided in his will for the collection and publication of the numerous articles on theological subjects contained in encyclopaedias, reviews and other periodicals, and appointed a committee to edit and publish these papers. In pursuance of his instructions the first volume, entitled “Revelation and Inspiration,’”’ was published in 1927 by the Oxford University Press; this, the second volume, containing Dr. Warfield’s articles on Biblical Doctrines, has been prepared under the editorial direction of this committee. In it the biblical references have been retained in the forms which were used in the several articles; but, while lacking in uniformity, it is believed that the abbreviations will readily be understood.

The generous permission to publish articles contained in this volume is gratefully acknowledged as follows: The Howard-Severance Co. for the articles taken from the ‘International Standard Encyclopaedia,’’ Charles Scribner’s Sons for the articles taken from “‘A Dictionary of the Bible,” edited by James Hastings, and from “A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels,” edited by James Hastings.

The clerical preparation of this volume has been done by Miss Letitia N. Gosman, to whom the thanks of the committee are hereby expressed.

ETHELBERT D. WARFIELD

WiLuiAM PARK ARMSTRONG

Caspar WISTAR HopGE
Committee.

Tue words ‘predestine,’ ‘predestinate,’ ‘predestination’ seem not to have been domiciled in English literary use until the later period of Middle English (they are all three found in Chaucer: ‘‘Troylous and Cryseyde,”’ 966; ‘‘Orisoune to the Holy Virgin,” 69; translation of ‘‘Boéthius,” b. 1, pr. 6, 1. 3844; the Old English equivalent seems to have been ‘forestihtian,’ as in Atlfric’s ‘‘ Homilies,” ii. 364, 366, in renderings of Rom. i. 4, viii. 30). ‘Predestine,’ ‘predestination’ were doubtless taken over from the French, while ‘predestinate’ probably owes its form directly to the Latin original of them all. The noun has never had a place in the English Bible, but the verb in the form ‘predestinate’ occurs in every one of its issues from Tindale to the Authorized Version. Its history in the English versions is a somewhat curious one. It goes back, of course, ultimately to the Latin ‘predestino’ (a good classical but not pre-Augustan word; while the noun ‘predestinatio’ seems to be of Patristic origin), which was adopted by the Vulgate as its regular rendering of the Greek mpoopifw, and occurs, with the sole exception of Acts iv. 28 (Vulgate decerno), wherever the Latin translators found that verb in their text (Rom. i. 4, vili. 29, 30, I Cor. ii. 7, Eph. i. 5, 11). But the Wyclifite versions did not carry ‘predestinate’ over into English in a single instance, but rendered in every case by ‘before ordain’ (Acts iv. 28 ‘deemed’). It was thus left to Tindale to give the word a place in the English Bible. This he did, however, in only one passage, Eph. i. 11, doubtless under the influence of the Vulgate. His ordinary rendering of mpoopifw is ‘ordain before’ (Rom. viii. 29, Eph. i. 5; cf. I Cor. ii. 7, where

1 Article “Predestination,’ from A Dictionary of the Bible, ed. by James

Hastings, v. 4, pp. 47-63. Pub. N. Y. 1909, by Charles Scribner’s Sons, the ‘before’ is omitted apparently only on account of the succeeding preposition into which it may be thought, therefore, to coalesce), varied in Rom. viii. 30 to ‘appoint before’; while, reverting to the Greek, he has ‘determined before’ at Acts iv. 28 and, following the better reading, has ‘declared’ at Rom. i. 4. The succeeding English versions follow Tindale very closely, though the Genevan omits ‘before’ in Acts iv. 28 and, doubtless in order to assimilate it to the neighbouring Eph. i. 11, reads ‘did predestinate’ in Eph. i. 5. The larger use of the word was due to the Rhemish version, which naturally reverts to the Vulgate and reproduces its predestino regularly in ‘predestinate’ (Rom. i. 4, viii. 29, 30, I Cor. ii. 7, Eph. 1. 5, 11; but Acts iv. 28 ‘decreed’). Under this influence the Authorized Version adopted ‘predestinate’ as its ordinary rendering of mpoopifw (Rom. viii. 29, 30, Eph. i. 5, 11), while continuing to follow Tindale at Acts iv. 28 ‘determined before,’ I Cor. ii. 7 ‘ordained,’ as well as at Rom. i. 4 ‘declared,’ in margin ‘Greek determined.’ Thus the word, tentatively introduced into a single passage by Tindale, seemed to have intrenched itself as the stated English representative of an important Greek term. The Revised Version has, however, dismissed it altogether from the English Bible and adopted in its stead the hybrid compound ‘foreordained’ as its invariable representative of mpoopifw (Acts iv. 28, Rom. viii. 29, 30, I Cor. ii. 7, Eph. i. 5, 11), — in this recurring substantially to the language of Wyclif and the preferred rendering of Tindale. None other than a literary interest, however, can attach to the change thus introduced: ‘foreordain’ and ‘predestinate’ are exact synonyms, the choice between which can be determined only by taste. The somewhat widespread notion that the seventeenth century theology distinguished between them, rests on a misapprehension of the evidently carefully-adjusted usage of them in the Westminster Confession, iii. 3 ff. This is not, however, the result of the attribution to the one word of a ‘stronger’ or to the other of a ‘harsher’ sense than that borne by its fellow, but a simple sequence of a current employment of ‘predestination’ as the precise synonym of ‘election,’ and a resultant hesitation to apply a term of such precious associations to the foreordination to death. Since then the tables have been quite turned, and it is questionable whether in popular speech the word ‘predestinate’ does not now bear an unpleasant suggestion.

That neither word occurs in the English Old Testament is due to the genius of the Hebrew language, which does not admit of such compound terms. Their place is taken in the Old Testament, therefore, by simple words expressive of purposing, determining, ordaining, with more or less contextual indication of previousness of action. These represent a variety of Hebrew words, the most explicit of which is perhaps 7: (Ps. exxxix. 16, Isa. xxii. 11, xxxvii. 26, xlvi. 11), by the side of which must be placed, however, py: (Isa. xiv. 24, 26, 27, xix. 12, xix. 17, xxiii. 9, Jer. xlix. 20, 1. 45), whose substantival derivative mxy (Job xxxviii. 2, xlii. 3, Jer. xxiii. 19, Prov. xix. 21, Ps. xxxili. 11, evii. 11, Isa. xiv. 26, xlvi. 10, 11, Ps. evi. 13, Isa. v. 19, xix. 17, Jer. xlix. 20, 1. 45, Mic. iv. 12) is doubtless the most precise Hebrew term for the Divine plan or purpose, although there occurs along with it in much the same sense the term mavma (Jer. xviii. 11, xxix. 11, xlix. 30, 1. 45, Isa. lv. 8, Jer. li. 29, Mic. iv. 12, Ps. xcii. 6, a derivative of svn (Gen. 1. 20, Bice oJer xvii. it, xxvii 3 xxixe 145: xxxvie3,/xlixy50; 1. 45, Lam. ii. 8). In the Aramaic portion of Daniel (iv. 14 (17), 21 (24) the common later Hebrew designation of the Divine decree (used especially in an evil sense) 772 occurs: and pn is occasionally used with much the same meaning (Ps. i. 7, Zeph. ii. 2, Ps. cv. 10 =I Chron. xvi. 17, Job xxiii. 14). Other words of similar import are pm (Jer. iv. 28, li. 12, Lam. ii. 19, Zec. i. 6, viii. 14, 15) with its substantive mm (Job xlil. 2, Jer. xxiii. 20, xxx. 24, li. 11); ppm (Ps. exv. 3, cxxxv. 6, Prov. xxi. 1, Isa. lv. 11, Jon. i. 14, Judg. xiii. 23, Isa. ii. 25, Isa. liii. 10) with its substantive ppn (Isa. xlvi. 10, xliv. 28, xlviii. 14, lil. 10); yan (Job xiv. 5, Isa. x. 22, 23, xxviii. 22, Dan. ix. 26, 27, xi. 36); Jon (Dan. ix. 24); Sxin ({ Sam. xii. 22, I Chron. xvii. 27, II Sam. vii. 29). To express that special act of predestination which we know as ‘election,’ the Hebrews commonly utilized the word -n3 (of Israel, Deut. iv. 37, vii. 6, 7, x. 15, xiv. 2, Isa. xli. 8, 9, xliii. 10, 30, xliv. 1, 2, J er. Xxxili. 24; and of the future, Isa. xiv. 1, lxv. 9, 15, 22; of Jehovah’s servant, xlii. 1, xlix. 7; of Jerusalem, Deut. xii. 14, 18, 26, xiv. 25, xv. 20, xvi. 7, 15, 16, xvii. 8, 10, xviii. 6, xxxi. 11, Jos. ix. 27, I Kings viii. 44, 48, xi. 13, 32, 36, xiv. 21, II Kings xxi. 7, xxiii. 27) with its substantive na (exclusively used of Jehovah’s ‘elect,’ II Sam. xxi. 6, I Chron. xvi. 13, Ps. lxxxix. 4; ev. 6, 48, evi. 5, 23, Isa. xlii. 1, xliii. 20, xlv. 4, lxv. 9, 15, 22), and occasionally the word p= in a pregnant sense (Gen. xviii. 19, Amos. iii. 2, Hos. xiii. 5, cf. Ps. 1. 6, xxxi. 8(7), xxxvii. 18, Isa. lviii. 3); while it is rather the execution of this previous choice in an act of separation that is expressed by S»tsm (Lev. xx. 24, xx. 26, I Kings viii. 53).

Keep reading